Allahabad High Court rules that Speed Post is not equivalent to Registered Post for Section 148 notice service
Allahabad High Court has recently held that Speed Post is not equivalent to Registered Post for Section 148 notice service.
Let us have a Short Overview of the Case: –
Case Overview
Court: Allahabad High Court
Citation: I.T.A. No. 436 of 2012
Date of Judgment: 19 September 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J. and Hon’ble Saral Srivastava, J.
Assessment Year: 2002–03
Core Issue
Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, sent via speed post (and not “registered post”) constitutes valid service on the assessee, and whether proceedings under Section 147 can be sustained without affixture when the assessee is untraceable.
Factual Matrix
• The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices under Section 148 for A.Ys. 2001–02 to 2003–04 via speed post.
• These were returned unserved, and the Income Tax Inspector’s report confirmed the assessee was not traceable.
• No effort was made to serve notice through affixture at the last known address.
• Despite this, reassessment orders under Sections 147/144 were passed ex parte.
• The CIT(A) set aside the reassessment, holding service invalid.
• The ITAT reversed CIT(A)’s order, invoking presumption under Section 114(f) of the Evidence jug Act that the notice was duly served since the envelope was missing from records.
Speed Post ≠ Registered Post:
The Court expressly disagreed with the Jharkhand High Court’s view in Milan Poddar v. CIT [(TA No. 59/2010)], holding that “post” in Section 282 read with Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 refers exclusively to ‘registered post’, not speed post.
Deemed Service Not Attracted:
Presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act can arise only when the notice is properly prepaid, addressed and sent via registered post. Since the notice was issued through speed post without acknowledgment, presumption of service could not be invoked.
Failure to Serve through Affixture:
• Even after the Inspector reported the assessee as untraceable, the AO failed to serve the notice via affixture as mandated under Section 282(1) read with Order V Rule 17 CPC.
• Hence, the procedural requirement for valid service was not satisfied.
Legal Principles Affirmed
• Registered post mandatory for valid “deemed service” under the Income Tax Act.
• Speed post cannot substitute registered post unless actual proof of personal receipt by the assessee exists.
• Affixture at the last known address is compulsory where personal service is not possible.
• Jurisdictional defect in service vitiates reassessment proceedings ab initio.
Ruling
• The appeal was allowed, and the ITAT’s order dated 16.11.2011 was quashed.
• The Court held that no valid service of notice under Section 148 had occurred; therefore, reassessment under Section 147 was invalid and void.
Tax litigants handling old reopening cases should review whether notices issued via speed post before the 2021 suffer from jurisdictional defects, as such proceedings may be quashed following this precedent.
The copy of the order is as under:
